Insane Ordinary Republican of the Year.

She Need Intensive Professional Help.

Ok.  Now I know for something of a fact that some Herb Cain fans went all verklempt when the perverted, philandering dog of pathological liar suspended his campaign.  One in particular I know of, is quite mad, quite out of his mind.  He was going to get my "Insane, Most Needs Professional Mental Health Treatment,  Ordinary Republican" Award for 2011.  Then I saw this vid.  Part of me just wants to think this is bullshit.  The other part of me thinks this is real, no so much because of the way the woman acts, cries, but the way the other woman off cam really seems to be sincerely reacting to her.  Never the less.  This year's award is a Tie between the crazy dood I mentioned, and this chick. 

Now I am only a lawyer who worked on a Risperdal case.  So no one should take me seriously if I say this lady might need some, or some med from the same class.  But lady definitely needs some treatment if she busts out in tears upon reading that Granpa Paul is a big old meanie when it comes to siding with Israel.  I mean really.  Crazy and stupid, because the one thing you can say about Granpa Paul is that he's like a broken record.  Been playing the same song, not only for not only years and years, but decades and decades.

(Oh.  The first version of the vid I saw was just the chick.  Version I linked to here has the set up by Cenk Uygur.  And he says one of my favorite lines!  "There's No Crying in Politics!"  Excellent!)

Waahhhaa! Waahhhaa! Shut Up Ya Big Baby!

Reason 1,234 why Michele Bachmann is not ready to be POTUS. Can we say petty, whiny crybaby? Now to be as fair as I can be, yes it was a mean cheap shot prank they pulled on her. And since I don't like her at all I can have my cup full of schadenfreude over it, even as I say it was a cheap shot prank. But anyone who can't take a cheap shot prank (and let's get real here. That was some weak s...hit they threw at her there) is definitely NOT a person I want representing the interests of my country against Hugo Chavez, or The Mullahs in Iran, or North Korea.

There is that line from the movie,"A League of Their Own." "There's no crying in baseball." Same goes with politics, except even more so. And Bachmann's a whiny child. Get out of the race now, ya crybaby.

Go Here for the Whiny Baby.

It's a Primary Debate. Not a Freaking Prom. Morons.

Sorta weirdest story of the week. But when dealing with wing nuts it's dealing with morons. Oftentimes.

And some of them were upset with the tough questions Chris Wallace was asking the wannabes, last night. Go Here.

Granted, when confronted about that on "Fox and Friends," he made the NFL analogy instead of my fave, there's no crying in baseball. But the message is the same. This is politics, and that a rough sport (even if not one with actual physical contact, in the USA at least.)

Now I linked to Mediate. And the "editor," Ms. Fran Martel (so I hear it, she's almost a home girl for me,) makes a very specious argument. But she is a true believer wing nut. Anyway, she argues that," Wallace’s assertiveness and frankness in his questioning helps undermine other media outlets’ criticism that Fox News merely acts as a “mouthpiece” for the Republican Party."

And that's some ripe, nasty bullshit. Firstly, intramural GOP politics is every bit as much a vicious blood sport as the GOP vs the Dems. Republicans eat their young, there aged, and any game that can be taken down and chewed on. Implying otherwise is a big fat lie. Therefore either covering or hosting a GOP Debate has to have some adversarial content. As much as the wannabes might want to run against P. Obama now, they have to shred each other to be declared GOP champ, earning the right to be the one to challenge the Democrat Incumbent.

Next, only a fool would think that there's no commercial value in hosting a more pugnacious debate than one that so full of softballs it's like Sean Hannity interviewing a favorite politician.

Next, never underestimate that Fox Mgmt. might be subtly behind someone already and the rest of the pack are just there for dramatic filler.

Lastly, Chris Wallace never seemed to me to be a wing nut. He knows who signs his paychecks, and all, but he's the rare true hunting hound over there in the Fox Kennel. I don't want to continue the metaphor, so I will just say he's one of the few real journalists with his own show, there. And that is the role he plays. He's Mr. Legitimate. Even if his frequent smirks belie the fact he's well amused by the bullshit game his networks got going, there.

So trotting out the "Not a mouthpiece" editorial comment is really bullshit, not because that is a lie, but again, that's Wallace's role there. And during a primary, he gets to play. Good for him! But that does not change the fact that Fox News is the cable TV equivalent of one of those old time biased local papers that routinely side with one party against the other. This is an ancient game, Fran. Don't pretend it is more than that.

My Satirical, Hopefully Comical Musical Comment on Tea Bagger Crybabies.

And what I honestly think about them bastids.

Wing Nut Crybaby Moment of the Week, Cont.

Ok. Sides are being taken in the Michele Bachmann Crazy Picture story. First, my biases. I can't stand her, and what she believes in, and have nothing but the lowest opinion of her as a human being. So I really don't give a shit if Newsweek went the extra mile to make her look bad. Goes with the territory. There's No Crying in Baseball. If you choose to get on the Gaming Grid, you accept the risk of harm. Get over it.

Now I was sorta surprised that NOW came down on Newsweek, and particularly believe their reasoning was bullshit. It was not so much the crazy looking pic itself (and I say that once you get to thinking the person's crazy, you are always going to see the crazy there,) they took offense to, but the caption,"Queen of Rage." Way I saw it was they were saying that did not pass the "Would a man get the same treatment," test. Cough. Burp. Fart. Substitute King or Prince for Queen? Follow me?

More surprising was Jon Stewart taking the anti Newsweek side. Granted, his routine on it ended with some eminently logical and liberal seeming POV that if you want to show how crazy she is, do it with her own words, line. So it's sorta weak for a defense. But I will get to analysis why that was a waste of time (and Jon. Go for the joke always. My man, you do it so well. But don't encourage or condone Wing Nut Victim hood. Even if there is as you said a grain of truth there. If there was a mountain, ok. But give those fuckers a grain, and they will not stop whining about their mistreatment for years. Remember that. Look ahead, not just in the short term. Hmm kay?)

Now on the Catholic Church Lady. I semi sorta agree with her. I agree that the thing is not so much the picture was sexist. But I think even she goes over the top with the it's unprofessional shit. Go here for that.

Now for the analytical reality check. I have studied most communication fields, worked in some, and at least was employed by/at a multi media communications corp. And as I have argued before, no matter what the medium, editing is as much what the process is about as is "creativity" and "creating." I would go so far as to say editing is built into all such processes including the sub processes employed by the artist/artisan. And when we get to photography, editing is done from the choice of camera, lens, aperture, film (if going old school,) lighting, angle, and such. And that is before you get to the darkroom/work room and play with your image to prepare and edit it for publication.

Now don't get me wrong. I think people can take the editing and tinkering far too far. But let us never pretend that the photographer and the editor, and in some cases the Editor (mgmt.) are not engaging in some form of editorial (journalistic) editing, in addition to the practical editing that is routine for the medium, when ever they are mocking up a cover shoot.

Do I think Newsweek went too far here? No. Again, I have the insider's pov. I get it the editing process, as a practical matter, is done on one level in order to communicate some idea. I have heard/read Tina Brown's tweet. And even if it sounds sorta bull shitty, it does convey the core truth that I have been talking about. They are trying to communicate messages in the cover art. They are NOT trying to be neutral. Don't ever believe that shit. Now if you want to believe they should try to be neutral all the time? Go head. It's your time you are wasting.

And in order to communicate my actual contempt for that idea, if you believe it, I dare you to hold your breath till that is the default in all magazine publishing. Let me know how that works out for you.


I originally thought to end it on that snarky note. But since starting this essay I have had in mind that iconic photo of Adali Stevenson, showing the worn sole of his shoe. Imagine if the editor decided to crop the shoe out of the picture. Good thing he didn't. I'd say. In that instance we are talking about the difference between an ordinary image, and a Pulitzer winner. Just saying.